A few threads down is a thread I started about setting monuments as the original surveyor. Too many have taken off on the idea I was referring to checking your measurements against someone else's measurements. That was not the intent of the thread.
Here's the deal. You have a baseline. You are told to go set out a tract of specific dimensions adjacent to that baseline. To keep it simple, say the tract is a square. Hence the far side should be parallel to the baseline and the sidelines should be perpendicular to the baseline. Simple? Right?
My problem is that there are original surveyors who can't seem to do that. They get close, set a bar, shoot the bar and report exactly what that shot says. So, instead of having a new line that is, say 660.00 feet in length and perpendicular to the baseline, the description reads something like: "thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 660.01 feet."
I sure wouldn't hire any of those people to lay out a subdivision for me. The roads and alleys would all wander off their intended widths.
I would not do that. 2 seconds in 660' isn't even one hundredth. The computer would do that, but I wouldn't. I'd show that computer who's boss. [edit text] and call it a day.
Sorry for you...
Maybe they were using tennis balls and spray paint method.
Not bad if they did.
So what are you going to do as the 'Atta Boy' reviewer in Goodolboy County, KS.
Nothing
or
Call them up and call them idiots and imbeciles using expletives?
Then chat about your work back load.
Maybe they did not use a reproducible bearing :-S
Like I said in your post. YOURvent is a problem that is local. Figure out why that is...
> I would not do that. 2 seconds in 660' isn't even one hundredth. The computer would do that, but I wouldn't. I'd show that computer who's boss. [edit text] and call it a day.
Have you ever seen anyone do that on a plat?
It sounds to me like the surveyor is trying to tell you he is within the acceptible tolerance, but showing you his real location.
I agree with your original comment on how the average client views our work. They don't understand that 660.01' is the same as 660.00 for intented purpose, they only see 2 different numbers.
Dugger
I hear you HC. Evidently some surveyors do not really understand measurements. They draw the map, send the coords to their data collector, go to the field and set the monuments. After they set the monuments, they then shoot them (as a check) and then place that check measurement on the map (ironically, the same surveyors will report any road r/w’s the exact planned width), thinking that the check shot is the “exact” location of the set monument rationalizing the idiocy by saying the original set “monument holds”. Yes the monument holds, but recording your check shot as the “true” position is erroneous.
The recorded measurement of the set monument should be an internal quality control check, and used only for that purpose. In other words, did I set the monument within the expected error of the intended 660.00 feet? If they did, then report the distance as 660.00'. If not, then they either need to adjust the monument or report the "true" measurement, keeping in mind the error ellipse of the check/reported shot. Do they really think they can measure to the nearest second of angle and .01 ft?? They are only kidding themselves.
It’s kinda like locating the centerline of an existing canal/creek by shooting the banks and offsetting to centerline, then reporting a segment of the centerline as exactly N 13d29’59” E – 53.99 ft.
Doesn't the original surveyor create the boundary? They set the monuments and write the description, and/or draw the subdivision plat. If they are calling to a monument, they show the bearing and distance to the monument. If they are creating a boundary at an even distance, they have the monuments at the distance on their plat or description. Where would the difference come in to play unless they are retracing an pre-existing boundary?
I am agreeing with Robert Hill. It sounds like a local problem or a different way of recording an original survey.
Typically, once it's platted, you have to do a revision if it changes for some reason. I don't think I've seen the same surveyor have two plats recorded of the same property with such miniscule differences. We have to remember that this thread is about the same surveyor having such a small difference in his own work: predicted and actual.
Maybe the deed would say one thing and the map another? I've seen that and I typically hold the map information.
I suppose this issue is one of consistency.
"The worst beating I ever got my mother said I am sick...and I said AND TIRED." -Bill Cosby
This does seem a little silly. What if the corner falls in a location not suitable for a monument? Say it falls in a private pond and it is necessary to set a rod on line 30' from the corner. If this same surveyor sets a rod and locates it as a check, finds out it's off line .01', does he say "rod set 30' from corner in pond and .01' north of line"?
It was only the part that you were the REVIEWER that got me going. As the reviewer, you would not really know if the client really cared if the new lines were EXACTLY parallel & square.
For example, when someone asks us to create a 300 x 300 lot, my first question is: DO you care if it is not EXACTLY 300 x 300? If they say no, then we will often compass & tape out the lot, drive the pins and locate them. The lot never comes out exactly 300 x 300 but the accuracy of the pins is better, the chances of a blunder are lower and the client saves some money.
If the client insists on a perfect square that is 300 x 300, we will set the pins as close as possible and call it 300 x 300.
Sorry for you...
Tell me more about this "tennis ball and spray paint" method. I am always looking to add another tool to the box.
Sorry for you...
Far below now is a thread where someone was needing to re-establish a quarter corner that the GLO notes indicated fell on a large boulder. Straight line and half distance just missed one side of the boulder. The "X" mark on the boulder had warn or sloughed off. He wanted to know where to put his determination of the corner.
My suggestion was to take a tennis ball, coat it heavily with paint, toss it in the air such that it would hit the boulder---somewhere, then make that paint spot the location of his new corner. It would be just as good as anyone else's attempt to pick a spot on the boulder.
Paden Cash had a similar problem a few days later and the painted tennis ball idea came up again.
From a survey reviewer standpoint, I don't care what someone selects as the boundaries of their tract, so long as it closes pretty well. But, having seen this foolishness happen, by several surveyors, suggests to me that this may be a widespread practice. I've been told one survey reviewer is insisting that a printout be provided to him showing the actual shots taken and the calculated closure. That may be part of the problem. They are conforming to his foolishness and thus creating bastard boundaries where normal practice would make far more sense. There is nothing in the minimum standards dictating such a requirement.
works A-OK
The process worked beautifully. We did have a technical problem however. The crew only had one water-logged tennis ball but had a good supply of golf balls.
After a few test throws it was determined that in the Oklahoma wind it was necessary to use the smaller, heavier golf ball. It is my opinion that you get a more precise pattern with the golf ball. Wet tennis balls with paint on them have a tendency to splatter and make much too large a target. It was a Township Corner afterall; precision was job one.
The NE Corner of 11N, 2W has now been established by what we consider the "spherical-bovine" method.
works A-OK
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
:good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good: :good:
works A-OK
😀
B-)
> A few threads down is a thread I started about setting monuments as the original surveyor. Too many have taken off on the idea I was referring to checking your measurements against someone else's measurements. That was not the intent of the thread.
>
> Here's the deal. You have a baseline. You are told to go set out a tract of specific dimensions adjacent to that baseline. To keep it simple, say the tract is a square. Hence the far side should be parallel to the baseline and the sidelines should be perpendicular to the baseline. Simple? Right?
>
> My problem is that there are original surveyors who can't seem to do that. They get close, set a bar, shoot the bar and report exactly what that shot says. So, instead of having a new line that is, say 660.00 feet in length and perpendicular to the baseline, the description reads something like: "thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 660.01 feet."
>
> I sure wouldn't hire any of those people to lay out a subdivision for me. The roads and alleys would all wander off their intended widths.
Not arguing for or against your "original surveyors", but I'd like to know if you are disappointed in a survey "report" that shows actual field measurements in addition to the "original surveyor's" qualified opinion?
I have no problem whatsoever with a plat showing both record and measured.
I do worry sometimes when the two numbers vary by some large amount. Sure hope the second surveyor reconciled that difference somehow before moving on. It's possible there was a typo or measurement error by either of the surveyors. If I find what I'm pretty sure was the original monument something like eight feet from where it was supposed to be and everything else is very, very close to record, I start working through various scenarios that would produce this apparent blunder. About 20 years ago I stumbled onto a situation where the first surveyor royally screwed the pooch on a corner that was set from a traverse point a few hundred feet away. The bar was something like 160 feet away from where it was supposed to be resulting in two boundary lines being off by a ridiculous amount. The good news was that I had his original handwritten notes and was able to figure out how this had happened.
My concern is aimed at those who can't seem to set a monument where it was intended to be. Recognize the problem and move it to the correct location. Simple.